SIR – The Economist is a little bit wrong—as are many others—about Margaret Thatcher’s early aims. At the outset the free market was not the “only” agenda (“No ordinary politician”, April 13th). Just as important was the idea that Britain could become a nation of owners rather than just earners, meaning that the old conflict between capital and labour could be much softened and the so-called public ownership of enterprise could be replaced by genuine ownership by the public. This was a far wider concept than simply calling for freer markets.

The crucial social dimension was that privatisation could spread the dignity and security of ownership to millions. It was widespread ownership that was going to be the answer to socialism, corporatism and labour militancy, not the free market as such. And this meant taking on vested capitalist interests just as much as the trade unions.

Progress was made, but it never came to full fruition because the social and unifying aspects of privatisation got less attention in later cabinets. But this was the real Thatcher dream. We loved Keith Joseph but we needed more than theory to enable the small saver, the thrifty family and the first-time business owner to build up a bit of security and have a real stake in the country.

I know this because in the late 1970s we spent evenings at Flood Street shaping our hopes for privatisation as a means of healing a country divided and demoralised by the union barons. The need to see wealth widely shared, as well as created, is as much a social priority now as it was then.

David HowellMember of the first Thatcher cabinet, 1979-83House of LordsLondon

SIR – Abraham Lincoln did not write the maxims you listed as favoured by Lady Thatcher, starting with “You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.” Lincoln’s oratorical skills surpassed such ham-fisted lines. The words were actually penned by William Boetcker, of the anti-trade union Citizens’ Alliance, in his 1916 pamphlet “The Ten Cannots”. It is a common error to attribute the lines to Lincoln. Ronald Reagan did it in his speech at the 1992 Republican convention.

Chuck BarnesPortland, Oregon

SIR – You glossed over Thatcher’s relationship with Augusto Pinochet. She was his staunch friend, even coming out of retirement to defend him and his regime after his arrest in London. I am sure the thousands of Chileans who were tortured, murdered and exiled by Pinochet’s bloody dictatorship would disagree with you lauding her as a “freedom fighter” (April 13th).

Pedro CunhaLondon

SIR – Margaret Thatcher condoned, or tolerated, apartheid in South Africa. She never condemned African dictators. Her notion of “the right of individuals to run their own lives” was not universal. Her doctrine that nations could be great if individualism was set free never applied to Africa.

Mungai NgaruiyaNairobi

SIR – Thatcher spearheaded economic success, but also inequality. The social costs could have been better mitigated, as could the decline of manufacturing, which David Cameron is now trying to address. In light of this mixed legacy, was it not slightly hasty for you to conclude that the world needs “more Thatcherism, not less”? You should stick to your guns, turn the page, and remember your more relevant agenda of True Progressivism (October 13th 2012).

Ronald FraserLondon

SIR – Many years of populism, overregulation and the state’s growing share of the economy, coupled with corruption, have put Argentina on the verge of having the rule of law replaced with the rule of arbitrary government. Thirty-one years after the Malvinas (Falklands) war, Thatcherism could help Argentina win a far more important fight.

Ignacio ArrietaBuenos Aires

SIR – Thatcher certainly was not a fighter for social freedoms. Take the homophobic Section 28 legislation. Back then, teachers were forbidden from mentioning homosexuality in a positive context. Thatcher made life a living hell for many gays in Britain.

Tobias BiedermannHong Kong

SIR – As Isaiah Berlin once remarked, freedom for the pike is death for the minnow. The victims of Thatcher’s economic policies, and there were many, are not wrong to remember her differently.

Trevor BantVancouver

Justice for Cambodia

SIR – Your obituary on Ieng Sary, the foreign minister in Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge regime, concluded that the UN-backed tribunal in Cambodia has “convicted only one person, and moved so achingly slowly that it was never going to catch him” (April 6th). I strongly disagree with this conclusion.

The fact that Ieng Sary will never be finally judged has little to do with the pace of the proceedings and much more to do with the fact that the tribunal was not established until 27 years after the Khmer Rouge regime fell. When the court opened for business in 2006 Ieng Sary was 81 years old. The government of Cambodia and the UN were well aware when they agreed to establish the court that with such elderly defendants on trial it would be a race against time.

Moreover, the projected length of the current trial against Nuon Chea and Khieu Samphan, which up until a month ago included Ieng Sary, is expected to be one of the shortest trials against former senior leaders in the recent history of international criminal law. The trial has been in progress for one year and four months, with the hearing of evidence expected to finish within the next five months. Trials of the most senior leaders at the international criminal tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the Special Court for Sierra Leone and the International Criminal Court have on average taken approximately three years.

Justice administered at a very rapid pace, although superficially attractive, undermines the enduring impact that a judicial process with a level of integrity can have on a developing country. To say that the Cambodian process is “achingly” slow is not only inaccurate but also fails to appreciate the broader positive impact that this court is having on Cambodian society and its institutions.

* SIR – Your fatalistic assessment on the future of the Los Angeles Times (“Here comes the cavalry”, March 23rd) assumed that it would fare better by giving up on reclaiming its former status as one of the major newspapers of the United States and resign itself to focusing on city and state coverage.

The Times has gone through very difficult periods in the past 15 years. However, despite setbacks such as the Staples Centre fiasco in 1999, when it looked like the Times was bound to become a second-class read, it has made a remarkable comeback under the editorship of John Carroll, receiving 13 Pulitzer prizes.

Granted, the topography of Los Angeles and its almost non-existent public commuting system makes it even more challenging to reach a consistent readership. But a city of this magnitude should never succumb to provincialism, and must continue its efforts to have a newspaper whose importance goes well beyond the state of California.

Berta Graciano-BuchmanBeverly Hills, California

Central banking for renewables

* SIR – Your newspaper has established a track record in arguing for liberal economic policies, but occasionally you make your readers doubt. As to renewable energy policy (“Bonfire of the subsidies”, April 6th) you argue in favour of setting a carbon price and letting the market find the cleanest and cheapest technology for curbing carbon emissions. I find this perfectly consistent with your liberal credentials, though one should add that market failures other than the carbon externality (such as knowledge spillovers) might justify policies in addition to carbon pricing.

As to monetary policy (“A world of cheap money”, April 6th), you take a radically different stance. Here you argue that central banks should help reduce “borrowing costs for firms in the crisis countries of the periphery”. Does this not turn central banking into a dirigiste central allocation of credit?

Should you be in the process of establishing a new track record, I wonder which monetary-policy proposal you might float next. Perhaps a special (ie, cheap) ECB refinancing facility in favour of Mediterranean renewable-energy projects that policymakers find worthwhile but that are not seeing the light of day despite an appropriate carbon price?

Armin RiessSchrassig, Luxembourg

Getting the dope on Bitcoin

SIR – We understand little about the comparative purchasing power of the Bitcoin, which explains much of its volatility (“A new specie”, April 13th). Since 1986, your Big Mac Index has helped readers understand the value of a currency by letting us know, for example, how many kronor buys a burger in Oslo.

Bitcoin is widely used in the black market to buy illegal goods and services. The Economist should compile an index of how many Bitcoins are needed to buy good cannabis. Perhaps this would help stabilise the currency, as overvaluations would be obvious.